Re: The Girls Only Thread

I'm not sure why it should be pushing it. Even early '70's was referred to as vintage in the 90's. :P Stuff that is 20+ years old seems fair to call vintage; my definition of it just hasn't updated in the last... 20 years.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Originally Posted by chiapet

I'm not sure why it should be pushing it. Even early '70's was referred to as vintage in the 90's. :P Stuff that is 20+ years old seems fair to call vintage; my definition of it just hasn't updated in the last... 20 years.

I think most people just refer to anything from the 70s as "old," "ugly shit," or "costumes." Clothing from the early 60s and before is actually desirable and hold value among the vintage communities.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Not really. There is a ton of fabulous stuff from the 70's. I'm not talking Sears catalog sweaters and cords and stuff, of course. Every era since the industrial revolution has had some gross mass produced "fashion," but there's always cool stuff from each generation too.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

i'd call my 70s patchwork leather coat vintage, plenty of people have made offers on it. of course i went to an actual thrift store. i get more annoyed when the word vintage is used on something new that looks vintage but is not really from the era.

Originally Posted by malcolmjamalawesome

It's when we discuss Coachella that we are at our collective dipshittiest.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Originally Posted by HowToDisappear

I don't think a sheer back is appropriate for work either. Save it for a night out.

Um, it's not sexy and I've seen people wear way, way worse at the office. I think showing off massive amounts of cleavage is worse than a pretty tame sheer back. I've worn open-backed dresses to work and gotten lots of compliments on them from female coworkers. I dunno, I guess every office is difference.

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

i get more annoyed when the word vintage is used on something new that looks vintage but is not really from the era.

Yeah this. And I think the vintage/not vintage argument is silly. The 90s were 20 years ago (I know, I know) so...yeah, I'll consider it vintage. I mostly buy up 90s clothes in droves because it's still relatively affordable and a lot of the cuts/styles are pretty flattering on my body. I would wear more 40s/50s stuff if it wasn't so expensive.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

I dunno. It's either psychological or I'm just too goddamn lazy to go through tons of other people's clothes to find something that works for me. I want a website in which I can enter in my measurements for any clothing item that I may desire, and in a few months someone ships that perfectly tailored item to me. And I don't want to pay $4,000 for it.

I miss talking to TomAz.

We all do. I live in the same city as him (unless he relocated) and rumor has it that at 3:15am if you listen closely and its really really quiet you can hear him telling you to go fuck yourself.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

i'd call my 70s patchwork leather coat vintage, plenty of people have made offers on it. of course i went to an actual thrift store. i get more annoyed when the word vintage is used on something new that looks vintage but is not really from the era.

How about our classic rock station in L.A...playing all the classic hits from the 90's.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

^ I can second this. A lot of why I can find vintage clothes is because I have a super small bust measurement and a small waist. Usually have to get things with "Free hips" because of my damn babymaking genes...but vintage shopping is a definite plus of being less endowed in the boob region.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

I only wore used clothing when I was a growing up. We were poor. The only alternative would've been going naked.

Really, most of my favorite articles of clothing ever were all vintage, found at thrift stores and garage sales. It's considerably tougher to find things that way nowadays. Online is where it's at, but the disadvantage is not being able to try them on.

Originally Posted by PotVsKtl

See that guy in the background talking loudly about crab cakes? That's you.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Originally Posted by algunz

No, but that was the fashion trend, so a lot of clothes were made for that figure. Think Twiggy.

Twiggy and Edie Sedgwick's fashion sense were my ideal. If I could dress in leggings or minis and boots and fantastic eyeliner and great jewellery every day I'd do it in a second. Too bad I'm less than 5 ft. tall.

Originally Posted by M Sparks

It's all riding on this. You've got big dreams to ride to the top of the Flash Mob world. Well internet fame costs. And right now is when you start paying for it...in sweat.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

I swear by Shiseido, but I have combination skin, and my experience is that you pretty much just have to try things until you find something that works for you. Make sure whatever you pick is not too harsh or drying -- it will actually make your skin oilier.

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Originally Posted by amyzzz

Anyone have any tips on what brands were good back in the 60's? Although the website I searched yesterday had a lot of items with no label or items that were hand-made.

I would worry less about brands/labels than condition/measurements. If you're buying stuff to wear - not as investment pieces - the manufacturer really won't matter. Honestly, I'd just spend some time sifting through eBay or Etsy, do a search for like "60s dress xs" or whatever and then see what pops up.

Originally Posted by bmack86

Has anyone gone on a date with a sandwich recently? What base did you get to? Ham?

Re: The Girls Only Thread

Very true, re: brand/condition. Poorly made vintage clothing either won't be around still or will be in terrible condition. Clothing constructed well and made from good fabric (and stored properly) will be the only stuff that has really held up in good condition. There are of course a number of prominent designer labels from that time, but vintage designer clothing is going to most likely be prohibitively expensive for daily use.